Happy 48th Moon Landing Anniversary

2»

Comments

  • TorTor Posts: 1,980
    Thanks for the info about the 70mm format used for the Apollo missions.
    I found a couple of websites about it this morning.
    A picture of a magazine: https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/film-magazine-hasselblad-70mm-apollo-11-lunar-surface
    General info: https://petapixel.com/2014/07/29/a-detailed-look-at-the-camera-tech-behind-the-historical-apollo-11-moon-landing/
  • My first camera as a kid was a Kodak "Box Brownie" like so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownie_(camera)#/media/File:Brownie2_overview3.jpg

    I was reminded of this fact recently when I saw one in a museum.

    It's kind of disturbing to find that you are so old that the common household items of your youth are now museum pieces!

    Anyway, I had a lot of fun developing the black and white film from my Brownie shots when I was 10 or so. It's kind of magical.

    Decades later I was making white light viewable holograms on glass plates. An even more magical experience as the ghostly image of your subject appears on the plate as the emulsion dries after processing.

    Still can't do that digitally as far as I understand.



  • Did lots of 120mm for a photography course back in the '70s using the Yashika D. Hard to beat the image quality for normal stuff. Years later, used Kodak Ektar 35mm. expensive, but good resolution. Got some nice pictures with a Canon Ftb, only thing electronic on it was the light meter. Last trip through Europe, did not take many pictures; that's when I realized that I will never be able to get the access or permission to get the shots in the books. Also, museums tend to freak out over flash with old paintings. Eh sorry, minor digression.
    Ordnung ist das halbe Leben
    I gave up on that half long ago.........
  • MikeDYurMikeDYur Posts: 2,176
    edited 2017-07-26 - 15:57:45
    For as little as 17 dollars I can have the same camera and case I had back then, and I could start making celluloid memories again. I could start back up where I left off wanting to develop color film, now that I don't have to fight my dad over the downstairs bathroom/darkroom anymore.

    Doesn't sound like much of a plan, when the only camera I use these days is on my cell phone. The learning curve would be just too great and there's not enough time for things like developing film.
    Don't want to go that route again, glad to see it go. When you take a picture of these days you can verify you have the perfect shot, instead of taking a bunch pictures only to find out a week later none of them are any good.

    One more reason to love the digital age. :thumb:
    720 x 1199 - 596K
  • TorTor Posts: 1,980
    There was something magic in watching the picture emerge on the photo paper in the darkroom bath though. Good memories.
    I think the last thing I did in the darkroom before that period was over was developing paper photos from slides. That was a lot of fun, with colour filters etc., but I didn't get to see the picture develop - that happened inside a cylinder. Only B/W work had that particular magic.
  • GordonMcCombGordonMcComb Posts: 3,366
    edited 2017-07-26 - 15:51:52
    MikeDYur wrote: »
    For as little as 17 dollars I can have the same camera and case I had back then, and I could start making celluloid memories again.

    Well, polyester, anyway. Slides are always fun, and even if you don't process them yourself, there are still plenty of places online you can get film and mailers. Up until a few years ago I was using Ektachrome for some projects, and then scanning the images in.
    Tor wrote: »
    There was something magic in watching the picture emerge on the photo paper in the darkroom bath though.

    By the mid late 1990s I was no longer using chemical photography for my work, but since about '85 I used a local service that rented darkroom space. You'd go in, and with your own paper, rent an enlarger and make your own prints. By about 1991 or so they switched to an Ilford autoprocessor. At first I hated it, but pretty soon I got the hang of not being able to do "soup tricks," and enjoyed the speed. The prints came out dry about 2 minutes later. Cut hours off the day.
    Did lots of 120mm for a photography course back in the '70s using the Yashika D.

    The Yashikas were very popular in schools, for classes and yearbooks. Rugged beasts. I used one as well, usually equipped with a Honeywell flash that had an exposed contact on it that frequently shocked the bejeezus out of me. I've long thought about picking up a used one on eBay (can't afford a Hasselblad or even Mamiya), then I look at the price of film and quickly give up on the idea. You either spend a fortune on film/processing, or a fortune on a digital medium-format camera. The digital Blads run about $25K to $45K these days.
  • MikeDYurMikeDYur Posts: 2,176
    edited 2017-07-26 - 17:18:15
    Gordon, yeah polyester, celluloid is the one that dosent last. :lol:
    Still have my Honeywell Auto Strobinar 110 from the 70's. Works on my Nikon hot shoe, good thing now that the internal flash pooped.


    Tor, I do remember that practice makes perfect getting the film apart and loaded on to the real. And the developing tray made it all worthwhile.


    Doesn't anyone else still manufacturer a large format film camera with modern optics, at a reasonable price? Nothing fancy, a good lens and shutter speed control, and mostly made of good old plastic.
    Also I wondered if they still sell developing kits, and how many. Is that something so important that it's passed down through generations.

    It certainly was an interesting hobby.

    And what happens if a EMP knocks out our electronics, we would be left camera-less in this digital age.


    You know there may be one thing you can't do with digital photography, a double exposure.
    On every vacation my dad would double expose at least one reel of 8mm movie film. Nothing like watching a tour of Cape Canaveral and scenes from the beach at the same time.

    Or an Air Force Academy parade with an old west reenactment. Not to forget the JFK memorial and horse dwawn caision at Arlington, with a croud of people walking over everything. Film was fun.
  • GordonMcCombGordonMcComb Posts: 3,366
    edited 2017-07-26 - 20:48:28
    MikeDYur wrote: »
    Doesn't anyone else still manufacturer a large format film camera with modern optics, at a reasonable price? Nothing fancy, a good lens and shutter speed control, and mostly made of good old plastic.

    New would have less quality than used. A used Graflex would have good optics, a more-than-decent shutter (depends on the model), and would be made of Bakelite plastic, steel, and fabric. You can get a good one in working condition and all parts for about $300-400. You couldn't buy anything decent as new for that amount.

    About a year ago I sold my sport Graphic, which was a trimmed-down version designed (mainly) for sports and very quick shots of city hall mayhem, for about $150. It was in creaky shape, and it went to a dealer who I'm sure fixed the camera up and found a good home for it. The Graflex cameras themselves are not rare, and don't demand super-high prices. Can't say the same for the flashtubes, which are now hoarded by the Star Wars Lightsaber fanatics. I'd rig up an electronic flash if I were doing studio work with it.

    Cut film is a problem. There are some places where you can still get it (B&H, etc.), but it's expensive, about $5 a sheet for color 4x5. Makes for a very expensive hobby.

  • "The digital Blads run about $25K to $45K these days."

    WOW. I knew about Hasselblad being expensive, but $45K?

    Last year I bought my current house. OK I have to admit a house in quite bad shape, because of the former renters living in it, so think of half as bad as you can see at 'Horders'.

    But including all the cleanup and renovating it from the inside I am still just at $47K.

    Somehow prices have drastically changed and have lost the connection to the real value of.

    Sad,

    Mike
    I am just another Code Monkey.
    A determined coder can write COBOL programs in any language. -- Author unknown.
    Press any key to continue, any other key to quit

    The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this post are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
  • GordonMcCombGordonMcComb Posts: 3,366
    edited 2017-07-26 - 23:28:19
    msrobots wrote: »
    "The digital Blads run about $25K to $45K these days."

    WOW. I knew about Hasselblad being expensive, but $45K?

    Indeed, the high-end Hasselblads cost as much as a luxury SUV:

    https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Cameras/ci/5517/N/4232860422 (H5D-200c)

    But there's another way of looking at it. These cameras are solely for the professional photographer who may shoot several hundred frames per day. Before you'd be looking at a couple bucks for film, a couple bucks more for processing, and a 24-48 hours wait if you didn't do the processing in your own lab. (And really, who had a K-14 lab to do their own Kodachrome? Answer: no one. It took a million dollars in lab equipment to process Kodachrome, and photographers and Paul Simon still love this film.)

    Now, every image is free, and there's no wait. Well, there's a few seconds wait for the image to be transferred over-the-air to your laptop so you can review it.

    In a week's time, a photographer stands to save hundreds in film/processing. Over the life of the camera (easily 20+ years), you're looking at tens of thousands in savings. So, Hasselblad can charge this much, and the better-financed photographers will pay it.

    Granted, only National Geographic-level photographers can afford one of these puppies with a 200c back. The rest of us have to drool over one of the "lesser" cameras in the $18K to $20K range. (Don't get excited: the other Blads you have to provide your own digital back, or use old-fashioned film.)

    After I win the lottery tonight, the H5D-200c is one of the first things I'm going to buy.

  • ercoerco Posts: 19,484
    After I win the lottery tonight, the H5D-200c is one of the first things I'm going to buy.

    And that makes you my new best friend.
    "When you make a thing, a thing that is new, it is so complicated making it that it is bound to be ugly. But those that make it after you, they don’t have to worry about making it. And they can make it pretty, and so everybody can like it when others make it after you."

    - Pablo Picasso
  • MY LOTTERY TICKET WON!!!!!

    I'll pick up my $2 later this afternoon.
  • ercoerco Posts: 19,484
    And those were the very last words heard from Mr. McComb, who disappeared with his lottery winnings. Godspeed, Gordon!
    "When you make a thing, a thing that is new, it is so complicated making it that it is bound to be ugly. But those that make it after you, they don’t have to worry about making it. And they can make it pretty, and so everybody can like it when others make it after you."

    - Pablo Picasso
  • MikeDYurMikeDYur Posts: 2,176
    edited 2017-07-30 - 04:54:50
    Sad.


  • MikeDYurMikeDYur Posts: 2,176
    edited 2017-07-30 - 16:24:33
    Heater. wrote: »
    My first camera as a kid was a Kodak "Box Brownie" like so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownie_(camera)#/media/File:Brownie2_overview3.jpg

    I was reminded of this fact recently when I saw one in a museum.




    I think it was Jim or Phil that showed me how to get specific results, for a word with multiple definitions. Now I don't remember how it was done.

    Is this the musium piece? It's ancient, but I really like the simplicity.

    EDIT: Ah, Brownie2, searching..

    EDIT2: Same one, it is an oldy.
    640 x 528 - 31K
Sign In or Register to comment.